Special prosecutor in Trayvon Martin shooting has decided against sending the case to

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Whats this talk of not having enough evidence? Grand Juries could indite a ham sandwhich.

Yes, but then somebody has to convict it. If that doesn't happen, then you get massive rioting, and believe it or not, that's the last thing that the Democrats want. Massive civil disturbances before an election tend to hurt incumbents. Look at Chicago '68 or the Rodney King riots, both of which created an impression of impotence in the White House. The Crown Heights riot did the same thing to David Dinkins in NYC. Remember, Dinkins was elected to heal NYC's racial strife, and ended up alienating whites when he made things worse.

Here's the problem: If there isn't enough evidence to convict, then putting it in front of a grand jury might end up with a trial and acquittal, which doesn't serve Obama's reelection, although the race hustlers will get lots of air time and riots out of it, but that also doesn't benefit Obama's reelection. OTOH, if they decline to prosecute, then the meme of a white power establishment that's covering up the crime gains traction, which also benefits the race hustlers, but doesn't necessarily create a flashpoint for nationwide riots. Obama needs this to simmer, but not boil over.

And, don't discount the Latino vote. This could really backfire on Obama. Black/Latino relations in inner cities are not good, despite what liberals would have us believe. The FBI crime stats lump Latinos in under the white category, which drives up the white numbers, but black/white homicides tend to be black/Latino homicides, and the decision to treat Latinos as whites for the purpose of ginning up hate crimes hysteria won't go down well in the Barrio.

Yes, but then somebody has to convict it. If that doesn't happen, then you get massive rioting, and believe it or not, that's the last thing that the Democrats want. Massive civil disturbances before an election tend to hurt incumbents. Look at Chicago '68 or the Rodney King riots, both of which created an impression of impotence in the White House. The Crown Heights riot did the same thing to David Dinkins in NYC. Remember, Dinkins was elected to heal NYC's racial strife, and ended up alienating whites when he made things worse.

Here's the problem: If there isn't enough evidence to convict, then putting it in front of a grand jury might end up with a trial and acquittal, which doesn't serve Obama's reelection, although the race hustlers will get lots of air time and riots out of it, but that also doesn't benefit Obama's reelection. OTOH, if they decline to prosecute, then the meme of a white power establishment that's covering up the crime gains traction, which also benefits the race hustlers, but doesn't necessarily create a flashpoint for nationwide riots. Obama needs this to simmer, but not boil over.

And, don't discount the Latino vote. This could really backfire on Obama. Black/Latino relations in inner cities are not good, despite what liberals would have us believe. The FBI crime stats lump Latinos in under the white category, which drives up the white numbers, but black/white homicides tend to be black/Latino homicides, and the decision to treat Latinos as whites for the purpose of ginning up hate crimes hysteria won't go down well in the Barrio.